I have been reading through dozens of debates referring to the existence of God and Intelligent Design. The main arguments against God and Intelligent Design seem to come from atheists who do not understand the metaphors and examples that Christians elucidate to try and convince the readers.

However, I am not so sure that I can be convinced against Intelligent Design. In chemistry, every element, isotope, atom, metal, non-metal, and metalloid have exact quantities and qualities that can only be perfectly designed to come into existence. This earth has so many variations of plants, animals, kingdoms, orders, species, genes, atmospheres, environments, etc., etc. etc., that it cannot be explained other than Intelligent Design.

I am just really curious as to why many people on this site denounce Intelligent Design as either fallacious or not probable. Particles couldn't just magically mesh together and create the universe. Evolution focuses on the progression of the human race along with animals and the environment. We could not have all we have today without God and Intelligent Design, which of course is my opinion. Why are atheists (I am not name-calling, I simply want to hear some responses from atheists) so quick to discredit any theories or comparisons for Intelligent Design?

I hope no one takes offense to this. I would just like to understand the views against Intelligent Design in a clearer way.

At 7/22/2009 7:01:27 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:I have been reading through dozens of debates referring to the existence of God and Intelligent Design. The main arguments against God and Intelligent Design seem to come from atheists who do not understand the metaphors and examples that Christians elucidate to try and convince the readers.

However, I am not so sure that I can be convinced against Intelligent Design. In chemistry, every element, isotope, atom, metal, non-metal, and metalloid have exact quantities and qualities that can only be perfectly designed to come into existence. This earth has so many variations of plants, animals, kingdoms, orders, species, genes, atmospheres, environments, etc., etc. etc., that it cannot be explained other than Intelligent Design.

I am just really curious as to why many people on this site denounce Intelligent Design as either fallacious or not probable. Particles couldn't just magically mesh together and create the universe. Evolution focuses on the progression of the human race along with animals and the environment. We could not have all we have today without God and Intelligent Design, which of course is my opinion. Why are atheists (I am not name-calling, I simply want to hear some responses from atheists) so quick to discredit any theories or comparisons for Intelligent Design?

I hope no one takes offense to this. I would just like to understand the views against Intelligent Design in a clearer way.

The problem with letting go of Intelligent Design is that doing so defies common sense. You examine the basic concepts of Intelligent Design and it seems to fit perfectly. The problem is that the simplest explanation is not always the best, and is not always accurate. For example, fruit flies do not grow out of fruit, as people used to believe. Eggs hatch.

The reason why there is a huge debate amongst laypersons and no debate amongst the respected scientific community, is that we hang onto common sense over right sense. With more education, Intelligent Design is revealed to be absurd.

This is also why Intelligent Design and Christian fundamentalism goes so well together. Both are concepts that grow out of the lack of need for knowledge and over-reliance on "common sense".

You will find that each and every bit of "support" for Intelligent Design is based on but one single fallacy, what I call "anthropocentrism". Intelligent design only stands under the assumption that human beings are in some way, the purpose and meaning of the universe, and to assume that is to assume a creator.

Thus, by its very definition, Intelligent Design is tautological. It explains both why it is wrong and why it appears to be such a perfect explanation in all regards.

I will get into more specifics later. I'l address each of your arguments in detail. But first a shower.

: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.

"In chemistry, every element, isotope, atom, metal, non-metal, and metalloid have exact quantities and qualities that can only be perfectly designed to come into existence."

First, your argument fails in the regard that perfection is subjective. For the beginner chemistry student, this may be a good point. For the advanced one, the reason for the "perfection" of Chemistry is not God, or magic. We can think of atoms of a particular element to be the same in that they are the base of matter. The method of interaction is the same because natural laws affect them equally. Thus, there is no wonder of mysticism to the congruence of matter. Since this is the case, equality is not a proper indicator of your alleged divine perfection. It is merely science.

You provided one example of how things can be seen to be "perfect". I'm sure you can come up with many others. I will tell you now that they all fail because perfection is subjective and 99.9% of all ID arguments of the "too perfect not to be designed" family fall under the umbrella fallacy of anthropocentric assumption (as discussed above). Simply speaking, you define "perfect" as "perfect for humans" and this assumes that humans are special in some way. The logical string leads backwards to the assumption that meaning and purpose exist in the universe and finally the premise of a creator.

"This earth has so many variations of plants, animals, kingdoms, orders, species, genes, atmospheres, environments, etc., etc. etc., that it cannot be explained other than Intelligent Design."

I don't know where to begin on this one. All I can say is that you lack the necessary education and that you are relying on common sense. And the average American is not a scientist, which is what you need to be in order to understand things. I will begin my response with another question: "Why can it not be explained?"

"I am just really curious as to why many people on this site denounce Intelligent Design as either fallacious or not probable."

Because it is fallacious and improbable. Intelligent Design is not impossible, but neither are the existence of Leprechauns, Unicorns, and the Loch Ness Monster. I would say that Intelligent Design is an alternative hypothesis, but that it falls short of Evolutionary Theory and the study of Abiogenesis.

"Particles couldn't just magically mesh together and create the universe."

I agree. You have to be pretty ignorant to assume that a woman who can float in water is a witch. You also have to be pretty ignorant to assume that what you cannot understand must be magic. Reductio ad absurdum only works if what you say is correct. How would you feel if I said "It's not probable for a bearded man who sits on a cloud in the sky to mash dirt together and make everything in 7 days"? Contorting something to make it seem absurd by adding lies to it is a very poor way of making an argument. I suggest you learn a bit more before tackling this subject.

"Evolution focuses on the progression of the human race along with animals and the environment."

True. Have you looked into abiogenesis to explain the origin of life itself?

"We could not have all we have today without God and Intelligent Design, which of course is my opinion."

It's nice to have opinions, but on DDO, we back them up.

"Why are atheists (I am not name-calling, I simply want to hear some responses from atheists) so quick to discredit any theories or comparisons for Intelligent Design?"

Most atheists discredit them because they dislike Religion. Most atheists on DDO understand the fallacies around ID. All scientists reject it because they know that ID is nothing more than an attempt to push Religion and Science together.

I myself am an Agnostic, but I take this issue very seriously. I personally have strong feelings about epistemology and I see Intelligent Design as the epitome of everything I stand against. I believe that people choose to understand their world in different ways, through different means, with different outcomes and with different goals. I choose to understand the world through logic because the secular assumptions I make in understanding the world help to manipulate the world into suiting my material needs. Others choose to understand the world through faith, because their religious assumptions help foster their spirituality.

Intelligent Design is an attempt by the Religious community to lure materialistic philosophers to a path of spiritual philosophy. It uses the spiritual assumptions to lead to a spiritual conclusion by mocking a materialistic path. It is a perversion, a disgusting and deformed bastard child. I say this with the utmost sincerity.

If you are a Creationist and a Christian, I applaud you. If and only if your decision to sustain that belief is based on faith and love for Christ and for man, and piety to God. If you are a Creationist because you are a Christian, and you seek to validate your beliefs using some sort of pretend logic or science, I think you should stop immediately.

: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.

I will get into more specifics later. I'l address each of your arguments in detail. But first a shower.

I hope you wipe off those fallacious lies about trying to undermine the beautiful creation of Intelligent Design... I'm just messin with ya Keptin, hope to see ur arguments soon

I'm also curious as to what types of arguments you have. This was the first issue I started debating and I've been reading responses and arguments for about 8 years now. I don't think there are any arguments extant that I haven't seen some variation of, and developed at least some response to.

This is probably the only topic of debate which I seriously doubt anyone can change my mind on, because of so many failed arguments on the ID side. But who knows? I might be surprised.

: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.

Arguments against ID do not come from atheists only. I have had several debates on the subject of evolution and creationism and ID/creationism and I have found no need to mention atheism in my debates, my opponents seem to do that, but I do not use religious arguments when dealing with pseudo-science. ID is scientifically bankrupt. Even the argument you are using in the OP has been addressed. I have presented material that Creationism is harmful to Judeo-Christian beliefs, but ID is just bad science. I have read most of the literature from the ID proponents and could find very little that could remotely pass peer review.

At 7/22/2009 11:47:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:Intelligent design does not require the existence of a God. It is my understanding that intelligent design is true, but it is not the result of a deity.

'Intelligent Design' is a horrible, cowardly little movement: It's 'Christianity by the back door' like we have something to be ashamed of.I, for one, loathe it.

You really think that Christians are the only one's who can claim ID? Intelligent design is something that predates Christianity. The Hindus knew of intelligent design LONG before them. I agree that Christians are using ID to have some credibility, but they are giving ID a bad name with that ridiculous creation myth.

At 7/23/2009 10:48:21 AM, sherlockmethod wrote:Geo is correct that ID does not have to be involved with a deity. ID tries to explain life on earth only. so the idea that aliens planted the building blocks of life on earth falls in line with ID.

True, but that's not the ID I'm referring to. I talking about the entire Universe, not just life on earth.

At 7/22/2009 7:01:27 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:I have been reading through dozens of debates referring to the existence of God and Intelligent Design. The main arguments against God and Intelligent Design seem to come from atheists who do not understand the metaphors and examples that Christians elucidate to try and convince the readers.

However, I am not so sure that I can be convinced against Intelligent Design. In chemistry, every element, isotope, atom, metal, non-metal, and metalloid have exact quantities and qualities that can only be perfectly designed to come into existence. This earth has so many variations of plants, animals, kingdoms, orders, species, genes, atmospheres, environments, etc., etc. etc., that it cannot be explained other than Intelligent Design.

I am just really curious as to why many people on this site denounce Intelligent Design as either fallacious or not probable. Particles couldn't just magically mesh together and create the universe. Evolution focuses on the progression of the human race along with animals and the environment. We could not have all we have today without God and Intelligent Design, which of course is my opinion. Why are atheists (I am not name-calling, I simply want to hear some responses from atheists) so quick to discredit any theories or comparisons for Intelligent Design?

I hope no one takes offense to this. I would just like to understand the views against Intelligent Design in a clearer way.

The problem with letting go of Intelligent Design is that doing so defies common sense. You examine the basic concepts of Intelligent Design and it seems to fit perfectly. The problem is that the simplest explanation is not always the best, and is not always accurate. For example, fruit flies do not grow out of fruit, as people used to believe. Eggs hatch.

I mean, to think a metaphysical entity who we cannot comprehend created everything around us is clearly a complicated idea.

Other ideas are at least supported by evidence -- but this idea both defies logic, and is something that's supposedly incomprehensible. I think, if anything, ID is an inherently far-fetched and complicated idea. Occam's razor would seemingly go against it.

At 7/22/2009 11:47:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:Intelligent design does not require the existence of a God. It is my understanding that intelligent design is true, but it is not the result of a deity.

'Intelligent Design' is a horrible, cowardly little movement: It's 'Christianity by the back door' like we have something to be ashamed of.I, for one, loathe it.

You really think that Christians are the only one's who can claim ID? Intelligent design is something that predates Christianity. The Hindus knew of intelligent design LONG before them. I agree that Christians are using ID to have some credibility, but they are giving ID a bad name with that ridiculous creation myth.

You mean the devil told someone ELSE the same lie before?Creation aint no myth.God created this ENTIRE universe in 6 days, around 6000 years ago.He spoke it into existence.

Proverbs29:25The fear of man brings a snareBUTwhoever trusts in the LordSHALLbe safe.

At 7/23/2009 10:48:21 AM, sherlockmethod wrote:Geo is correct that ID does not have to be involved with a deity. ID tries to explain life on earth only. so the idea that aliens planted the building blocks of life on earth falls in line with ID.

Ok, what created the aliens?The only logical answer in finding how the universe came to be is God.

At 7/23/2009 10:48:21 AM, sherlockmethod wrote:Geo is correct that ID does not have to be involved with a deity. ID tries to explain life on earth only. so the idea that aliens planted the building blocks of life on earth falls in line with ID.

Ok, what created the aliens?The only logical answer in finding how the universe came to be is God.

At 7/23/2009 10:48:21 AM, sherlockmethod wrote:Geo is correct that ID does not have to be involved with a deity. ID tries to explain life on earth only. so the idea that aliens planted the building blocks of life on earth falls in line with ID.

Ok, what created the aliens?The only logical answer in finding how the universe came to be is God.

At 7/23/2009 10:48:21 AM, sherlockmethod wrote:Geo is correct that ID does not have to be involved with a deity. ID tries to explain life on earth only. so the idea that aliens planted the building blocks of life on earth falls in line with ID.

Ok, what created the aliens?The only logical answer in finding how the universe came to be is God.

I don't care one whit who created aliens that I am not even sure exist and if you want an answer ask an ID proponent as I find it scientifically unsound, and no, God is not the only logical answer concerning the universe and its origin. Read my statement and you will see that it is indeed correct and the dimwits at the Discovery Institute will agree that alien induction of life on earth does work under their nonsense. If you wish to debate me on the Big Bang theory then do so; come prepared. I do not take the "God exists" debates, but I will address science.

At 7/23/2009 10:48:21 AM, sherlockmethod wrote:Geo is correct that ID does not have to be involved with a deity. ID tries to explain life on earth only. so the idea that aliens planted the building blocks of life on earth falls in line with ID.

Ok, what created the aliens?The only logical answer in finding how the universe came to be is God.

I don't care one whit who created aliens that I am not even sure exist and if you want an answer ask an ID proponent as I find it scientifically unsound, and no, God is not the only logical answer concerning the universe and its origin. Read my statement and you will see that it is indeed correct and the dimwits at the Discovery Institute will agree that alien induction of life on earth does work under their nonsense. If you wish to debate me on the Big Bang theory then do so; come prepared. I do not take the "God exists" debates, but I will address science.

I would accept the debate but I am sorry to inform you that I do not have a computer with me now. I am using the internet channel on the wii to type this in.(which is a real pain in the butt.)